ILNews

Tea party radio ad opposes David’s retention; Shepard gives backing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Tea Party Corp. has produced a radio advertisement critical of Justice Steven David ahead of his retention vote on Tuesday.

David, who was appointed to the court in 2010, has faced opposition due to his 2011 opinion in Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana. David wrote for a 3-2 majority that there was no right to reasonably resist unlawful residential entry by police. The Legislature reacted this year to public outcry, passing SEA 1, which said such a right does exist.

In response to the unusual opposition to a retention vote, David was authorized by the Judicial Qualifications Commission to create a website, www.justicestevendavid.com. Appellate judges typically may not campaign for retention unless they encounter active opposition.

David said in a recent interview with the Indiana Lawyer that, “It’s important to look at a person’s body of work rather than one decision.” He noted taking part in more than 150 Indiana Supreme Court decisions since his appointment, more than 30 of which he wrote.

In the tea party radio ad, an announcer says, “For hundreds of years, your home was your castle. … As a result of Justice Steven David’s opinion, your home is no longer your castle … Is Justice Steven David a judge Hoosiers want on the Indiana Supreme Court?”

The tea party website, www.indianapolisteaparty.com, says the ad is airing statewide. Representatives of Indianapolis Tea Party Corp. did not respond to messages seeking comment.

David recently published an endorsement on his website from former Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who wrote, “It is good for Indiana that Steve David hears the call of public service, and we should vote to retain him in office with confidence that we’re lucky to have him.”

Shepard also endorsed other appellate judges up for retention as well as the process that placed them on the bench. “Indiana’s system of merit appointment and retention has saved us from the sort of unseemly judicial political campaigns so visible even in the states around us. And it has promoted able people to the bench. The public’s knowledge of this fact has produced higher voter participation and higher voter approval over time,” Shepard wrote.

Also on the statewide retention ballot Tuesday are Justice Robert Rucker and Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik. Court of Appeals Judge John Baker will appear on ballots in COA District 1, 53 mostly southern and central Indiana counties excluding Delaware, Hamilton, Madison and Marion counties; and COA judges Michael Barnes and Paul Mathias will appear on ballots in District 3, 20 counties in northern Indiana.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • voters exercise their free speech rights; usual cheerleaders for democracy and free speech frown upon it
    Democracy, democracy, democracy, except when it threatens powers-that-be! If the unwashed masses dare disagree with a law decision abolishing an individual right cherished by free Enlgish and Americans since the Magna Carta, then they are "extremists." Bah!
  • Vote No to Extremisim
    I would say no extremisim should be welcomed. Not from Tea pariers, Move Oners, 99 percenters, or the 47 percenters, NOR any liberalist, conservitivist, libetarianist, greenist, socialist, communist, facist, anarchist, agnostic..ist. No one should be welcomed or have any say or opinion of those in our legal system. U scary!
  • Merit Selection
    Tea Party extremism is not welcome in our Legal System of Justice: RETAIN STEVEN DAVID

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

    2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

    3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

    4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

    5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

    ADVERTISEMENT